Aemilius wrote:Dhammapada is essential reading, but you have misunderstood what the Buddha says there. Buddha tried to change the meaning of the word "Brahman". He used it in the sense of an arya, i.e. a person who has in this life attained spiritual realization through his own efforts. Which is contrary to the hereditary or caste meaning of the word. If you doubt this, please consult any knowledgeable buddhist, like Ven. Sravasti Dhammika as an example!

Oh, yes, of course. The Buddha was not born into a "Hindu" family, in a "Hindu" land and he did not have "Hindu" teachers before his enlightenment... And Jesus was not a Jew.

60. Long is the night to the sleepless; long is the league to the weary. Long is worldly existence to fools who know not the Sublime Truth.

61. Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool.

62. The fool worries, thinking, "I have sons, I have wealth." Indeed, when he himself is not his own, whence are sons, whence is wealth?

63. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.

64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

65. Though only for a moment a discerning person associates with a wise man, quickly he comprehends the Truth, just as the tongue tastes the flavor of the soup.

66. Fools of little wit are enemies unto themselves as they move about doing evil deeds, the fruits of which are bitter.

67. Ill done is that action of doing which one repents later, and the fruit of which one, weeping, reaps with tears.

68. Well done is that action of doing which one repents not later, and the fruit of which one reaps with delight and happiness.

69. So long as an evil deed has not ripened, the fool thinks it as sweet as honey. But when the evil deed ripens, the fool comes to grief.

70. Month after month a fool may eat his food with the tip of a blade of grass, but he still is not worth a sixteenth part of the those who have comprehended the Truth.

71. Truly, an evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, like milk that does not turn sour all at once. But smoldering, it follows the fool like fire covered by ashes.

72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.

73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries, and honor among householders.

74. "Let both laymen and monks think that it was done by me. In every work, great and small, let them follow me" — such is the ambition of the fool; thus his desire and pride increase.

75. One is the quest for worldly gain, and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim, but develop detachment instead.

Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed One lived at Saavatthii, in Jeta's Grove, in Anaathapindika's monastery.

Arittha's Wrong View2. Now on that occasion a monk called Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, had conceived this pernicious view: "There are things called 'obstructions'[1] by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching, those things are not necessarily obstructive for one who pursues them."

3. Several monks, hearing about it, went to the monk Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, and asked him: "Is it true, friend Arittha, that you have conceived this pernicious view: "There are things called (obstructions) by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching, those things are not necessarily obstructive for one who pursues them'?"

"Yes, indeed, friends, (I do hold that view)."

Then those monks, wishing to dissuade Arittha from that pernicious view, urged, admonished, questioned and exhorted him thus: "Do not say so, friend Arittha, do not say so! Do not misrepresent the Blessed One! It is not right to misrepresent him. Never would the Blessed One speak like that. For in many ways, indeed, has the Blessed One said of those obstructive things that they are obstructions, indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them. Sense desires, so he has said, bring little enjoyment and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, has the Blessed One said; they are like a lump of flesh, like a torch of straw, like a pit of burning coals, like a dream, like borrowed goods, like a fruit-bearing tree, like a slaughter house, like a stake of swords, like a snake's head, are sense desires, has the Blessed One said.[2] They bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater."

Yet, though the monk Arittha was thus urged, admonished, questioned and exhorted by those monks, he still clung tenaciously and obstinately to his pernicious view, saying: "There are things called 'obstructions' by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching, those things are not necessarily obstructive for one who pursues them."

4. When those monks could not dissuade the monk Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, from his pernicious view, they went to the Blessed One, and after respectfully saluting him, they sat down at one side. Being seated they told the Blessed One (all that had happened), and they said: "Since, O Lord, we could not dissuade the monk Arittha from his pernicious view, we have now reported this matter to the Blessed One."

5. Then the Blessed One addressed a certain monk thus: "Go, O monk, and tell the monk Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, that the Master calls him." — "Yes, Lord," replied the monk. He went to the monk Arittha and spoke to him: "The Master calls you, friend Arittha." — "Yes, friend," replied Arittha and he went to meet the Blessed One. Having arrived, he saluted the Blessed One respectfully and sat down at one side. When he was seated the Blessed One addressed him thus:

"Is it true, Arittha, that you have conceived this pernicious view: 'There are things called "obstructions" by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching those things are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them'?" — "Yes, indeed, Lord, I understand the teaching of the Blessed One in this way that those things called 'obstructions' by the Blessed One, are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them."

6. "Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time."[3]

7. Then the Blessed One addressed the monks thus: "What do you think, O monks: has that monk Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, produced any spark (of understanding) in this teaching and discipline?"[4] — "How should that be, Lord? Certainly not, O Lord." ...

Aemilius wrote:Dhammapada is essential reading, but you have misunderstood what the Buddha says there. Buddha tried to change the meaning of the word "Brahman". He used it in the sense of an arya, i.e. a person who has in this life attained spiritual realization through his own efforts. Which is contrary to the hereditary or caste meaning of the word. If you doubt this, please consult any knowledgeable buddhist, like Ven. Sravasti Dhammika as an example!

Oh, yes, of course. The Buddha was not born into a "Hindu" family, in a "Hindu" land and he did not have "Hindu" teachers before his enlightenment... And Jesus was not a Jew.

You are right, as has been said here in this forum, the term "Hindu" is a recent coinage. So it is not appropriate to call the cultural values of Siddhartha's home country "Hindu". Wikipedia however says that the word hindu is earlier than what Huseng has said, it says that the word "Hindu" was used and popularized by the arabs in 1300's.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HinduAn enlightened person like Buddha Gautama has become free of self. This means being free of identifying Himself as a person of a particular time period, of a particular country or a particular nationality. He is a Transcendental Person, Arya Pudgala. Buddha further says in the Udana Varga that this attitude should be applied by his disciples also. That they should cease calling themselves by their national identities, but should consider that the Sangha of Buddha's disciples is free of national and cultural identities.

It is the case, if you know and see truly with a transcendental purified vision. Otherwise it often happens that you see the content of your own mind in an external object. This is that you see a pure golden object as a "spade".

Aemilius wrote:You are right, as has been said here in this forum, the term "Hindu" is a recent coinage. So it is not appropriate to call the cultural values of Siddhartha's home country "Hindu".

I am aware of this. Thank you. That is the reason that, for want of a better term, I used the word Hindu with apostrophes. In Greece the designation "Hindu" (Ινδός) describes ones ethnic group/nationality whereas the term Ινδουιστής (Hinduist) denotes a follower of any of the "Indian" gods/religions: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc... I imagine though that you got the point I was making.

An enlightened person like Buddha Gautama has become free of self. This means being free of identifying Himself as a person of a particular time period, of a particular country or a particular nationality. He is a Transcendental Person, Arya Pudgala. Buddha further says in the Udana Varga that this attitude should be applied by his disciples also. That they should cease calling themselves by their national identities, but should consider that the Sangha of Buddha's disciples is free of national and cultural identities.

Yes well, even if this is the case it does not render irrelevant the fact that Shakyamuni Buddha had two "Hindu" teachers that we know of (now whether either of them was a Brahman or not...): Alara Kalama (Skr. Ārāḍa Kālāma) and Udaka Ramaputta (Skr. Udraka Rāmaputra).

One day four boys approached Hodja and gave him a bagful of walnuts."Hodja, we can't divide these walnuts evenly among us, could you please help us?" So Hodja asked them: "Do you want God's way of distribution or the mortal's way?""Gods way!" the children replied.Hodja opened the bag and gave two handfuls of walnuts to one child, one handful to the other, two walnuts to the third child and none to the fourth."What kind of distribution is this?" the children asked baffled."Well, this is God's way." he answered. "He gives some people a lot, some people a little and nothing to others. If you had asked for the mortal's way I would have given the same amount to everybody."

Hodja had a yearning for a delicious bowl of soup with lots of yoghurt and mint leaves in it. As he was sitting at home thinking to himself "I wish I had a bowl of soup that I could sip" he heard somebody knocking on the courtyard door.

Hoja went out to see who it was and found the neighbours son holding an empty bowl in his hands."My father says 'hello' and asks if he can borrow a bowl of soup if you have some." said the boy.Hodja smiled and said: "Well, it seems my neighbours can even smell my fantasies!"

Aemilius wrote:You are right, as has been said here in this forum, the term "Hindu" is a recent coinage. So it is not appropriate to call the cultural values of Siddhartha's home country "Hindu".

I am aware of this. Thank you. That is the reason that, for want of a better term, I used the word Hindu with apostrophes. In Greece the designation "Hindu" (Ινδός) describes ones ethnic group/nationality whereas the term Ινδουιστής (Hinduist) denotes a follower of any of the "Indian" gods/religions: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc... I imagine though that you got the point I was making.

An enlightened person like Buddha Gautama has become free of self. This means being free of identifying Himself as a person of a particular time period, of a particular country or a particular nationality. He is a Transcendental Person, Arya Pudgala. Buddha further says in the Udana Varga that this attitude should be applied by his disciples also. That they should cease calling themselves by their national identities, but should consider that the Sangha of Buddha's disciples is free of national and cultural identities.

Yes well, even if this is the case it does not render irrelevant the fact that Shakyamuni Buddha had two "Hindu" teachers that we know of (now whether either of them was a Brahman or not...): Alara Kalama (Skr. Ārāḍa Kālāma) and Udaka Ramaputta (Skr. Udraka Rāmaputra).

I brushed up a little: There are six schools of orthodox (hinduism): Nyaya, Vaisesika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva mimamsa, and Vedanta. And three outside schools: Jain, Buddha, and Carvaka (materialist). The six orthodox schools are called Astika, and three heterodox schools are called Nastika.

Not all Brahmins are hindu. In buddhist sutras there is the Brahmin Lokayata. Lokayata is a Carvaka/materialist school of thought. In modern times there are Brahmin marxists, brahmin theoretical physicists, and brahmin atheist philosophers.

Sources say that Udraka Ramaputra was a Jain hermit. Lalita Vistara Sutra says that Siddhartha met a few brahmin hermits before meeting Arada Kalama, it doesn't specify Arada Kalama's caste, and therefore he is probably a non-brahmin (and a free philosopher).

Aemilius wrote: Sources say that Udraka Ramaputra was a Jain hermit. Lalita Vistara Sutra says that Siddhartha met a few brahmin hermits before meeting Arada Kalama, it doesn't specify Arada Kalama's caste, and therefore he is probably a non-brahmin (and a free philosopher).

Oh, yipee!

HODJA AND GOD

The Hodja was travelling from a long way away, he got very tired and decided to rest.

After resting for a while he prayed:"Dear God, he said. Please send me a donkey!"

A few minutes later, he saw a man riding on a horse and leading a young donkey.The man came nearer, stopped beside Hodja and shouted:"You, leprous man! Instead of sitting there starving, come here and carry the donkey, it is tired."Although Hodja explained that he too was tired, the tyrannical man beat him with a stick and so poor Hodja took the donkey on his shoulders.

Then the man on the horse proceeded on his way. Every time Hodja slowed down, the man beat him and after many miserable hours, they reached their destination, where the man let Hodja go, without thanking him.

Hodja, completely exhausted, fell down on the ground and slept many hours. When he awoke he murmured:"Oh, God! What happened? Was it that I didn't explain properly, or that you didn't understand?"

Good story. I think it means that all beings want to avoid pain equally. Nasruddin is equal to the donkey. He is not different from or better than the donkey. And further, there is no real difference between humans and animals. It is surprising to find this idea in any form in sufism, which is part of Islam.It is well known that the equality of all sentient beings exists in buddhism. All sentient beings are in the Wheel transmigration or rebirth (bhavacakra) equally. Humans are not fundamentally better than or different from animals. But to find this in sufism or islam is surprising.

In 1970's I read some books of Idries Shah. Shah has translated many stories of Mulla Nasruddin, as he was usually called in 1970's. In his books Idries Shah assures that there are several levels of meaning in the stories of Mulla Nasruddin, including very profound meanings. He also tells us that these stories are an object of serious and deep study in certain sufi convents. Based on this I am quite sure that a deeper meaning here is the equality of the needs of donkey and of Mulla Nasruddin.

Aemilius wrote:In 1970's I read some books of Idries Shah. Shah has translated many stories of Mulla Nasruddin, as he was usually called in 1970's. In his books Idries Shah assures that there are several levels of meaning in the stories of Mulla Nasruddin, including very profound meanings. He also tells us that these stories are an object of serious and deep study in certain sufi convents. Based on this I am quite sure that a deeper meaning here is the equality of the needs of donkey and of Mulla Nasruddin.

I am sure there are many layers of meaning! One for each sentient being.

One day, the tax collector of the city of Aksehir and surrounding towns fell into the river. Since he didn't know how to swim, he was about to drown. The villagers gathered by the river bank trying to save him.

"Give me your hand, give me your hand!" they were all shouting. But the man did not extend his arm.

At that time Nasreddin Hodja happened to be passing by.

"Hodja Effendi..." said the people that were trying to help "...the tax collector fell into the river. He is going to drown. He is not giving us his hand."

"Let me try." said the Hodja. `

Effendi! Effendi!" he yelled to the man bobbing in the water. "Take my hand!"

Immediately the tax collector extended his arm and grabbed Hodja's hand. Thus the Hodja and the people around were now able to pull him out of the water.

"You see..." the Hodja explained "...he is a tax collector, he is more practised in taking than giving."

One day a neighbour asked Nasreddin Hodja if he could borrow Hodja's donkey:"Hodja Effendi, we need a donkey for a few hours. Could I take yours?""I would gladly lend you my donkey, my neighbour," the Hodja started his excuse, "but he is not here."Just at that moment the donkey's loud and long bray was heard coming from Hodja's shed."Shame on you Hodja Effendi, you have been caught lying, your donkey is braying in the shed!" said the neighbour"My dear fellow," Nasreddin Hodja continued unrepentant, "are you going to believe the word of a Hodja or are you going to believe a donkey?"